About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
CNNW 15
LANGUAGE
English 15
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15
made without a miranda warning or made while he's not really competent between times when he's sedated and not sedated. so they may be risking their death penalty, but they may be doing it for a good reason. they may need realtime intelligence, but i don't think that the public safety exception will stand up for allowing them not to have given the miranda warnings. >> fascinating. in fact, i have a lot of questions about that i'm going to get to. and actually i want to bring in another colleague as well right now. steve razor is a former military judge advocate general and knows a thing or two about this military issue. typically, steve, we hear about a 48-hour window and this is a very new area of justice. this has only been in sort of parlay for the last couple of years. we are far outside of that 48 hours by today. but can it be extended in the case of public safety? and exactly when can you establish that a public safety exemption has expired or is no longer of concern? how long can you keep him from getting miranda? >> well, there's no hard and fast rule on that. and that's exactl
reading him miranda rights. what does that mean for any information they might be getting? >> well, it's very important to the people -- we've been talking a lot about miranda and i think it's important for people to understand what it does and doesn't mean. if you are questioned without your miranda rights, all that means is that the statements you make cannot be used against you in a criminal court. they can be used against other people. they can be used as leads to other inquiries. and you can still be prosecuted with lots of other evidence. all it means is that those statements cannot be used against you. from what it certainly appears there is lots of other evidence against this fellow. so the fact that the government might be giving up the chance to use some of it is not much of a sacrifice on the part of the government. >> he also at this point could indicate he wants an attorney and doesn't want to answer any questions, correct? >> absolutely. even when someone doesn't get miranda rights, the statements still have to be voluntary. he can't be tortured. he can't be waterboarded.
analyst. the 19-year-old has not been read his miranda rights. why does this matter what has it allowed for? what is the issue here? >> a lot of variables here, the question is he in any kwan condition to answer questions with or without miranda? what is his health situation? also, even if he doesn't get miranda warnings, he may decline to answer questions in any case. they can't force him to answer questions, but if he does not receive miranda warnings and if he then anticipates questions those answers cannot be used in a criminal case against him. they can be used for intelligence gathering. they can be used if there are other conspirators who may be prosecuted, can't be used against him. other evidence can be used against him. may be lots of other evidence. if you don't get miranda warnings, your statements i can't be used against you. >> so this is a sensitive issue. another sensitive issue raised by republican senators, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, peter king, they released a statement, the suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combat tant status.
's been read his miranda rights and at what point does he get counsel? >> he will get counsel more or less immediately, if he asks for it. certainly he will be read his miranda rights. this is obviously a very controversial subject involving terrorism investigations, but since this was an fbi arrest, this will -- he will be read his miranda rights. he doesn't have to ask for a lawyer. he could make statements that could later be used against him. that's after all what the miranda warnings are. you can have an attorney or you can make a statement. depending on -- >> jeff, let me jump in here. i want to check in with john king. >> -- he will either speak to -- >> john, you're hearing more? >> i just want to pass along information from our producer, who says two federal law enforcement officials have confirmed to her they have verified the identity. it is the younger brother, suspect number two, in custody. it is now they say federal officials verified the identity and have no doubt. as i said earlier, a federal official i communicated with said in custody, unspecified medical needs and they
be charged as early as today. investigators did not read him his miranda rights when he was captured. they invoked what they call the public safety exception. it permits law enforcement officials to interrogate a suspect and use that information as direct evident in court, and that is causing some controversy out there. let's talk about that. we'll talk about that in a few moments. also want to talk about other issues. joining us, former u.s. attorney doug jones who led the prosecutor against eric ruduffel, the 1996 atlanta olympic bomber. thank you for joining us. first of all, let's talk about this video. this video that has now surfaced that cnn has confirmed, a well known jihadist in dagestan who himself was killed in december, the video was posted on tamerlan tsarnaev's youtube channel. since then, it's been deleted. what does that say, if you're a u.s. attorney investigating this case, what does that say to you? >> well, wolf, i think it would be one of two things. there obviously could be some contact since he traveled over that way. there could have been some contact. there c
of public safety exception before you give him his miranda rights, all that talk of naming him as an enemy combatant, all of that is moot right now. they've gone forward with the official proceedings. >> well, they may have used the public safety exception, and apparently they were using it to question him, and he responded in some way given his medical condition. but certainly now that he has a lawyer, that period, however long it was, is over. and you're right, the enemy combatant thing was a nonstarter from the never going to happen. this is a criminal case in federal court in massachusetts, and that's where it will stay until it's resolved one way or another. >> it's going to take a while. thanks very much, jeffrey. much more on what's going on in this boston investigation coming up here in "the situation room" 0. >>> also, another terror plot released today, new information. canadian authorities announcing the arrest of two men believed to be part of a terror plot to attack a passenger train that may have been heading towards the united states, the plot said to have an alleged connect
miranda rights. >> >> not not at all. he'll be entitled to his american rights and i think if we don't do that, we become less of ourselves. we are americans. we have beauties in this system. we some problems in the system. i think if we do anything other than embrace what america is all about, then the terrorist would have won and i think that is the absolute wrong thing to do. >> congressman, thanks so much. good to see you. appreciate it. >>> we know now that 19-year-old dzhokhar tsarnaev will face federal terrorism charges and with all the photographs and video, is the case a slam dunk for prosecutors? we'll look into that next. i have low testosterone. there, i said it. how did i know? well, i didn't really. see, i figured low testosterone would decrease my sex drive... but when i started losing energy and became moody... that's when i had an honest conversation with my doctor. we discussed all the symptoms... then he gave me some blood tests. showed it was low t. that's it. it was a number -- not just me. [ male announcer ] today, men with low t have androgel 1.62% (testosterone gel
miranda rights? >> yes, that's my view. >> so that changes nothing in view of their ability to interrogate? >> what it changes is their ability to question him and use any statement that he makes. that they're not allowed to do. >> he is apparently claiming -- >> they don't need that in this case. they got a mountain of evidence against this guy. >> right. they have testified it seems against him and his brother for the act they perpetrated. >> correct. >> what they will i'm sure be extremely curious to find out if they can is are they part of a wider group of either like-minded individuals who have been coordinating themselves reading stuff on the internet, videos and so on, which apparently is what he's claiming. whether they're attached to anybody in chechnya, for example, or islamic fundamentalist nature, et cetera, et cetera, how far can you go in terms of eliciting that information from somebody like him in his position once he's had his miranda rights read to him as he now has? >> my view is you can go as far as you think it's productive to go. however, i don't think it's terribly p
dzhokhar tsarnaev to investigators, we do not know if that was before or after he received his miranda warnings or before or after he obtained counsel. that's an excellent point. one of the things we do know that he is saying apparently is that it was his brother tamerlan who was the mastermind here. is that something that could be helpful to his defense if he was merely following his brother? >> well, it will be helpful to his defense in the sense of mitigating the penalty that he might end up suffering. from what i've read and what i've seen, he's clearly as culpable as his brother. the videos that they picked up, and the statements that he made to the driver of the suv, all would indicate that he was a willing participant in this crime, and also the fact that he fled from the scene would further indicate his willingness to participate in this crime. however, any influence that he might have suffered from his brother, his brother's influence on him, may again go to mitigate any penalty that might be imposed upon him. whether he ends up getting the death penalty or whether he ends up
was provided before or after that judge/magistrate was there and r read him his miranda rights? the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney? >> sources have indicated to us that was part of a questioning that they did under the -- fbi agent does under a national security exemption, before he was assigned counsel. they had the ability in the interest of public safety exception to be able to ask questions, were there additional coconspirators, where and were there additional explosives. the source of things you want to know immediately in order to protect the public. presumably base wanted on what we are hearing, those are the questions they asked and the kinds of responses prior to the first appearance yesterday. >> that would fit in with the public safety exception in the there a in providing the miranda rights to this criminal defendant as he now is, charges have been read to him. fran, we'll stay in close touch with you, fran townsend. much more from boston in just a moment. other news that we're watching as well. the fbi, back in washington, up on capitol hill, lawmake
a former federal prosecutor. we now that dzhokhar, suspect number two, has been read his miranda rights. sow won't be designated as an enemy combatant. but if he was labelled an enemy combatant, he wouldn't have been entitled to a lawyer and a jury trial. they could have asked him a lot of other questions without a lawyer present that may or may not be relevant to national security. now why did they make this decision not to go for enemy combatant status? do they think they have so much evidence in this case that they can go ahead with the civilian jury trial and they don't need to hide behind enemy combatant? >> i think that is certainly part of it. it does look like an overwhelming body of evidence. more than that, they thought they could get the immediate information they needed by the miranda exception, the public safety exception so they could make sure the public was safe. there accident seem to be an constitution aal basis to treat someone that commits a crime like this on our soil. the supreme court has upheld treating an american, the american taliban hamdi captured in afghanis
to answer this first, chris. let's talk about miranda here and the fact that his rights have not been read to him. what do you make of that? will that be an issue going forward in this particular case? >> you know, it depends. first, i don't know -- we don't know if he's said anything. if he hasn't made any statements at all, the fact that he didn't get his miranda rights read is not going to be an a relevant issue. if he's made statements i think what the government is doing in expanding that public safety exception beyond the immediacy of the act i think is something that will be taken up, and it will have to be looked at maybe by the u.s. supreme court who just last week heard oral argument in the case from houston that was asking the question when does the fifth amendment or when does your right to remain silent gyp, and so we're already looking at these issues. this is an expansion i think that expands the public safety exception. i think some court is going to have to look at that. >> thank you very much. it's been almost a week now since this city was terrorized, and it's seemingly
wouldn't apply. you're seeing that play out in terms that he wasn't read his miranda rights. the difference being they can ask the question, they can get the information they need. but, the information they get, they can't, then, turn around and use against him at a trial. that would have to be gained separately. >> okay, thank you, chris. chris pulling a late shift for us. it was interesting, he said that, well, dzhokhar will, in fact, be a valuable piece of evidence, if you like. really, he was an older bloer. the younger one, i don't know, went aloong for the ride. >> yeah, the older brother, younger brother scenario. how this is sort of reminiscent of the sniper shooting. it was a similar situation. it soernly was a question just floating out there right now. and now that the police work has played off and chris was talking about tonight, as you've been discussing, it's really time to the legal aspect of the marathon bombings. earlier tonight, anderson cooper talked with senior legal analyst, jeffrey toobin. the first thing that will happen will lay out the basics of the
the question this is exactly the whole issue going back to the miranda, if he had the public safety concern of what were those explosive devices intended for? that's one of the reasons they wanted to talk to him or one of the things thaw wanted to talk to him about at the time before they realized how severely hurt he was. it absolutely proves the point there could have more more attacks planned or another person who was a part of it who maybe at the last minute didn't do it. another reason to think there was more planned is maybe that's why they didn't kill themselves at the time of the marathon attack. they wanted to live to attack another day. >> jeff, somebody must have trained them. can you learn to build a bomb by yourself just by going to the internet and going out there, go to a home depot and buying this kind of stuff? >> you could try to learn, but what you would certainly want to do is rehearse. you don't want to go through the operational energy that it would take to mount an attack like at the marathon without having a fair degree of confidence that your device is going to work
. just to confirm, this -- dzhokhar tsarnaev has not yet been read his miranda rights, correct? >> i have to say i don't know. because there was an initial appearance today, that's why this complaint is out. the circuit executive, the administrator of this area, has put out a statement saying there was an initial appearance before a magistrate judge. that is as far as i understand it an arraignment. i have never heard of an arraignment without an attorney present. they didn't mention an attorney present. if an attorney is present, the attorney will simply say to the client, you -- don't answer questions. at that point, the attorney is the person the prosecutor is supposed to deal with. i have to say, there is information out there that we don't have. whether an attorney was present, whether this was an actual arraignment, i think we just need to hold off on that until we get more information. >> we're holding off. still so early this all happened. >> before we let deb feyerick go and chase down that lead she was referring to, deb, i was wondering, is there anything else that stands out in
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)